Sunday, 6 December 2009

Leadership or Management?

The debate is still,
and will arguably permanently be, alive. Hundreds of definitions and theories
have been coined about leadership and management over time and as often as not the
same formulations have been used to describe both management and leadership.

Over the last
decades, leadership has been defined as the “ability to get others to do what
they don’t want to do and like it” (Henry S. Truman); as “an influencing
process aimed at goal achievement” (Ralph Stogdill) and as the capacity to have
“foresight, knowledge and intuition” (Margaret Malpas), just to cite a very few
formulations.

These definitions
and all of the others (estimated in roughly 350) formulated so far have indeed a
common factor: these all refer to traits and personal capabilities, which all result
in the leader “making things happen” thanks to his particular ability to manage
interpersonal relations.

According to K.
Grint, management is the equivalent of “déjà vù” (already seen), whereas leadership
is the equivalent of “vù déjà” (never seen before).

Research has shown
that the list of traits typical of a leader is extremely long and it is objectively
difficult to reach a common consent on determining which amongst these are the
most important.

According to
Professor Abraham Zaleznic, management is most concerned with processes and
structure. Ignoring people, managers tend to avoid responsibility, whilst
leaders accept it. John Kotter claims that leadership and management are
different but complementary, “management is about successfully addressing
organisational complexity, whereas leadership is concerned with successfully
handling change.”

More than a role, leadership
definitions basically tend to emphasize an approach, or rather, the way to perform
an activity and attain results. Leaders are not supposed to have subordinates;
at least not as part or as a consequence of them having these distinctive features.
Many leaders can have subordinates just because they incidentally also are managers.
When leading, individuals having these peculiar traits essentially do not exercise
any formal control, because as leaders they have followers and following is indeed
invariably considered as a voluntary activity.

Managers, by
definition, have subordinates and their power over others stems from formal authority.
These have been appointed to carry out specific tasks, such as planning
activities and managing staff, and do not necessary have any leadership traits.
In contrast, within the same organisation there could be a number of individuals,
who have not been appointed as managers and who have not let alone been
“appointed” by their employer as leaders, who may actually have these distinctive
characteristics. In practice, the figure of a leader not necessarily and
sometimes even hardly coincides with the role of manager.

Leaders at large are
people who have some innate abilities, charisma and to some extent charm. Individuals
having these distinctive characteristics but do not filling any management role
are habitually called informal leaders. Informal leaders are hence those employees
who have leadership traits and characteristics but that do not practically cover
any management positions. These instinctively and instantly win the respect,
trust and appreciation of the others and, in many circumstances, their opinion sensibly
affects that of their colleagues.

Managers should by
no means try and discredit informal leaders; in contrast, they should invariably
do whatever they can to have these on their side and try to improve their
leadership abilities, whilst winning the trust and respect of informal leaders.

So is leadership an
inborn feature or can it actually be learned?

It could be claimed
that leadership is something innate which is hence nurtured and developed further,
but it should not be overlooked the circumstance that the most effective and
powerful component of leadership is definitely the innate one. Whether an
individual has it this can be effectually developed, but whether a person has
no inborn leadership traits gaining these is likely to prove to be a sorely demanding,
tricky and lengthy process. Yet, no warranty of success can be given at the
outset.

What should hence executives
do with the managers who do not have this gift and what should they rather do
with the employees who naturally have this significant feature?

Managers who do not
have leadership traits can hardly influence their reports “to go the extra
mile”, notwithstanding managers should never stop being managers to start being
leaders. Technical knowledge, organisational abilities, business acumen and
other typical managerial abilities are fundamental in order to these
effectually perform their tasks and contribute to the organizational success as
expected by the employer.

Being able to
influence others and being able to let them do what they would not actually
want to, for instance, would prove to be totally pointless whether a precise
direction has not been previously identified and specific objectives set, consistently
and coherently with the business strategy and aim.

Management is hence
definitely important, but it is undeniable that whether coupled with leadership
abilities management would acquire a dramatic, powerful strength.

As argued by Rob
Briner (Head of the School of Management and Organisational psychology at
Birkbeck, University of London), nowadays “everyone wants to be a leader.
Nobody wants to be a manager. Being a leader sounds dynamic and exciting. Being
a manger seems mundane”. What was once recognised and defined as management, or
rather, the most appealing part of that is now defined leadership, leaving the
less exciting part of the job still linked to the management concept.

Managers who do not
perform well are typically blamed for poor leadership, rather than for poor management.
As Rob Briner put it “trying to replace management with leadership causes many
difficulties but, in particular, it encourages the idea that leadership is
something other than or above management. In the words of Mintzberg “leadership
is merely management practiced well.”

Leadership ability could
be ultimately considered as something manager should better have in addition to
the habitual specifications required by the position and a feature which organisations
should strive to develop amongst their managers who do not have it.

Informal leaders

Every organisation
should indeed provide opportunities for training, development and career
advancement to its entire employee population; nonetheless, particular
attention should be paid to those individuals who show natural leadership
traits. In a way or in another, employers should definitely gain their commitment
and involvement in the organisation activity and do their utmost to increase
their participation and contribution to the organizational success. Their truly
sense of belonging can prove to be of paramount importance to elicit and
inspire the same feeling in many others colleagues.

Leadership
and good practice

First and foremost,
it is necessary to determine whether leadership has anything to do with good
practice. Whether it would be considered as a specific part of the most general
“training and development” activity, it can be deemed it does.

Every organisation
should invariably provide to all of its employees opportunity for training,
growth and development. As part of this overall aim, leadership programmes
should be therefore provided to the individuals currently filling management
positions and to those who will be very likely called to play that role in the near
and distant future.

To this extent an
additional important organizational issues actually comes to play, namely succession
planning.

Organizations should
invariably have for each key role existing within the business a person capable
to fill those roles. Habitually it is an executives’ responsibility to indicate
the name of the managers who are likely, for their current capabilities and
traits, to fill the key positions which will fall vacant in the future. This crucial
activity has to be indeed performed regardless of the circumstance that this
need might arise in the incoming or in the distant future.

The identified
managers should be hence assessed, with regard to their current and potential leadership
capabilities, by an external consultant.

Specific programmes
will be therefore designed and provided to these individuals in order these to acquire
and/or develop the leadership capabilities and skills necessary to effectually perform
their future role.

Periodical
refreshing sessions and assessment activities will need to be planned and held,
in addition to an activity aiming at constantly monitoring the individual progress
and eventually identified gaps.

To these managers should
also be offered bespoke, dedicated coaching and mentoring sessions preferably delivered
by the incumbent relevant senior managers. The CEO should actively participate in
the identification and planning phases of these activities and should give
her/his contribution for the identification of the future protagonists of the
organisation, on which essentially depends and relies the future of the
organisation itself.